John Edwards's endorsement
of Obama seems par for the course for Hillary. As soon as she wins, superdelegates
endorse the other guy. As soon as she wins, backers endorse her opponent.
The more she wins, the more media decry her staying in the race. The better
she does, the worse she's made out to be. It's quite a staggering and
stunning beating that she's been taking from the liberal elite.

John Edwards's belated
endorsement of Barack Obama for Democratic presidential nominee is one
in a series of blows. Like the others, it comes at a strange time. Not
unlike the way things seem to go for Hillary Clinton in this campaign,
the endorsement comes after Clinton's most resounding victory, and the
widest margin of victory for any candidate in any Democratic primary to
date this season--68 to 26--a 42 percentage point trouncing of the "presumptive
nominee." (With a loss like that, should that be "presumptive"
or "presumptuous?") Further, Clinton continued to rack up massive
margins in the very voting blocks that Edwards had courted and claimed
previous to dropping out. Beyond that, she also won over Obama's core
voters.

The question is, given
the fact that Clinton wins and wins big the Edwards constituents, why
would Edwards, the supposed populist bucker of the elite establishment,
endorse the candidate who loses his "own" group of voters and
loses it big?

A potential Edwards
endorsement was losing all efficacy and came at the last possible meaningful
moment. If Edwards's endorsement was to mean anything, it had to come
now. And given that Edwards is the person whose endorsement might mean
the most to the constituency that Obama is being slaughtered amongst,
his endorsement is necessary for Obama's presumption to go on.

The conversation from
Obama might have gone something like this: "You (Edwards) know I'm
going to win. You know only I can give you a position in my cabinet. You
know that I need you to lend credence to my claims for working-class white
voters. Endorse me now or forever hold your peace." "Well, all
right."

Edwards decided to
lend Obama a hand because he's an opportunist. There is no other explanation
befitting this endorsement. After all, if he were to remain true to his
own constituency, he would have endorsed Clinton. But instead of following
his own voters' preferences, he went directly against them, at the very
moment when they had most clearly made that preference known.

Edwards's endorsement
of Obama validates every misgiving about him held by pundits and others.
He is a lawyer. He is slick. His populist rhetoric is tailor-made to pander
to voters, while tailor-made suits betray his real ambition, as can be
descried in his lavish lifestyle, most emblematically in his $400.00 hair
cuts.

In short, Edwards
has proven himself to be the very slick, greedy, opportunistic player
that his worst critics have said that he is.